View Full Version : New Sniper weapon for Army?
LukeMacGillie
08-01-08, 14:34
Killing from a distance
Army, Corps seek longer-range sniper rifle
By Matthew Cox - mcox@militarytimes.com
Posted : August 04, 2008
For decades, 7.62mm has been the sniper standard for long-range killing. But after more than six years of war, today’s snipers also want a more potent caliber capable of killing enemy fighters well beyond 1,000 meters.
Both Army and Marine Corps weapons officials recently announced that they wanted a long-range sniper rifle designed to kill an enemy from as far out as 1,800 meters. The Marine Corps-led program is aimed at selecting an anti-personnel sniper weapon to complement the standard 7.62mm sniper rifle, which is effective out to 800 meters.
But there is also a lower-profile effort going on in the 25th Infantry Division to upgrade the venerable M24 sniper rifle from a 7.62mm NATO round to the more powerful .300 Winchester Magnum, a change that would give snipers the ability to hit an enemy out to 1,200 meters.
Late last year, the Army began replacing the bolt-action M24 with the M110 Semiautomatic Sniper System to give snipers a rapid-fire weapon for engaging multiple targets in urban areas. Many in the sniper community were critical of the decision, arguing that the M24’s simple bolt-action design has fewer moving parts and is more accurate than a more complex semi-auto design.
This prompted 25th ID officials in Hawaii to write an Operational Needs Statement that involved sending their existing M24s to the gun’s maker, Remington Arms Co. in Madison, N.C., to be retrofitted to .300 Win Mag instead of turning them in to the Army, said Maj. Chaz Bowser, logistics support element commander for U.S. Army Pacific.
The caliber upgrade for the M24 is not a new concept. Special operations units such as the 75th Ranger Regiment have been shooting M24s chambered in .300 Win Mag since the late 1990s.
And there were plans to eventually upgrade the M24 to .300 Win Mag when the weapon was first adopted in 1989, Bowser said, adding that that plan became a “forgotten concept” because the Army wasn’t involved in a protracted war as it is today.
“We weren’t fighting bad guys; we were shooting ... at the National Training Center,” Bowser said, referring to the Army installation at Fort Irwin, Calif.
Capt. Jason Lojka, who oversees Army Sniper School as commander of C Company, 2nd Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment, at Fort Benning, Ga., said he was not aware of the 25th ID effort, but he acknowledged that “there has been talk of changing the M24 to a .300 Win Mag.”
Capt. Keith Bell, Lojka’s predecessor at Sniper School, agreed. It’s an easy fix that requires minimal changes to the M24 and will result in a much greater capability, he said. Bell is assigned to a military transition team at Fort Riley, Kan.
“It’s a whole lot easier to hit a target between 800 and 1,200 meters with a .300 Win Mag,” he said, describing the round’s flat trajectory and reduced resistance to wind.
Many snipers see the upgrade to .300 Win Mag as a way to hold on to the M24, a weapon they say they believe is more reliable and accurate than the M110.
The M110 relies on the same gas system as the M16 and M4 carbine. When the round is fired, it directs the gas created down a tube into the weapon’s receiver, and cycles the weapon.
The M24’s action requires snipers to manually feed a round into the chamber after each shot with the weapon’s bolt.
“I would just rather rely on my right hand and a piece of metal” to cycle that weapon as opposed to a gas system, Bell said. “A gas gun is going to fail more often than a bolt gun. Period.”
To date, the Army has fielded about 500 M110s. Although it’s still early in the process, some snipers have criticized the durability of the Knight’s Armament Co. weapon.
A sniper section leader, who asked to remain anonymous, recently told Army Times that his unit has had to ship his section’s three M110s back to Knight’s Armament to be repaired.
“They’re all broke, all three of them,” he said. “Two of them started firing two- to three-round bursts.” The third M110 won’t fire at all, he said.
Army weapons officials said they are aware of these problems and one M110 at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, that suffers from the same problem of so-called “double firing” on a single trigger squeeze, said Rich Audette, deputy project manager for soldier weapons.
Several snipers have told Army Times that some special operations units have experienced the same problem with the MK11 MOD 0 rifle, an earlier version of the M110 that Navy SEALs have used since the late 1990s.
Trigger assembly
The problem may have to do with two special screws in the trigger assembly that are set at the factory, said Bob Galeazzi, product director for sniper systems under Product Manager Crew Served Weapons.
The Army experienced problems with the trigger screws moving during endurance testing on the M110’s original design, said Reed Knight, owner of Knight’s Armament. As a fix, the Titusville, Fla., company made the screws harder and changed the threading during testing in 2005.
Knight said he was surprised that this problem has surfaced in three M110s.
“I am a bit disturbed, because we think we have solved the problem,” he said. “We have gone through two 5,000-round tests.”
If there is a problem with these M110s, Knight said, they will be “fixed and sent back to the field.”
“We don’t want anything out there that is not what it should be,” he said.
Some snipers have said they want to be trained so they can fix their M110s themselves. Army officials maintain that snipers are trained to make small fixes such as replacing the firing pin or extractor, but any major fixes on the M110 have to be done at the unit armor level or at Knight’s Armament, Audette said.
In addition to reliability and durability, Bell and other snipers said they believe the M24, because of its simpler design, is more accurate than the M110.
“When you want to squeeze that last bit of accuracy out of a weapon, you want a bolt gun,” Bell said. “It’s not that the [M110] is a bad weapon; it just shouldn’t be the only weapon.”
The 25th ID’s upgrade effort involves sending the existing M24s to Remington, where they will be fitted with a new barrel, a new bolt face, a special folding stock and a more powerful optic. Each upgrade would cost about $4,000, said Mike Haugen, director of international military and law enforcement sales for Remington. Standard M24s cost about $6,700, he added.
The 25th ID’s leadership has approved an operational needs statement, Bowser said, but it still will have to be approved by senior leaders at the Pentagon.
Small-arms officials at the Infantry Center also are working to give snipers a new longer-range sniper rifle in addition to the two weapons they use now.
Greater distance
Both the Marine Corps and the Army have completed separate assessments that reached the same conclusion — snipers need to be able to take longer-range anti-personnel shots, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, who heads up the Directorate of Combat Developments at Benning.
“We agree we would like to have a longer-range antipersonnel system,” he said. “We haven’t figured out how to solve that yet.”
Both the Army and the Marine Corps use versions of a .50-caliber sniper rifle that is effective out to 2,000 meters, but the 30-pound weapon is mainly intended to destroy large nonhuman targets such as light-skinned vehicles.
The Army and the Corps want a weapon comparable in weight to the Marine M40 series sniper weapon, the M110 and the M24, all of which weigh about 17 pounds.
Several sources have told Army Times that the Marine Corps has considered the .338 Lapua magnum, an extreme long-range round that is proving increasingly popular with special operations units. The .338 has an effective range of about 1,600 meters.
Marine Lt. Col. Tracy Tafolla, program manager for infantry weapons from the Marine Corps System Command at Marine Base Quantico, Va., acknowledged that the Marine Corps has looked at the .338 along with other heavier calibers, but he said “we are not dictating the caliber” for the long-range sniper rifle program. “It’s performance-based.”
The Marine program is leaving the door open for a weapon that could hit targets out to 1,800 meters, but Benning officials said they are looking at a requirement of 1,500 meters.
“After 1,500 meters, you are going to have problems identifying targets with the optics we have today,” Bell said.
It will likely be about eight months before industry will see a request for proposal for this new system, Tafolla said.
In the meantime, Benning officials are considering a possible reversal of the decision on the M24 and to allow units to carry both it and the M110. For now, units will continue to turn in their M24s when they receive the M110s.
Although it’s still only in the idea phase, Radcliffe said, “what we are talking about, conceptually, is we want to retain the M24 in the sniper team.”
Keeping the M24 would give sniper teams two precision weapons until it could eventually be replaced by the longer-range antipersonnel system, Benning officials said.
There is no timeline for when a decision might be made on the M24, but Radcliffe acknowledged the criticism from many snipers in the Army on the decision to phase out the M24.
Part of the backlash is driven by emotion, Radcliffe said, but that doesn’t make it any less important.
“It’s real, and it is important that we pay attention to that,” Radcliffe said.
HolyRoller
08-01-08, 16:17
Most interesting ... most interesting.
What, they're actually converting M24s to .300 WinMag only 20 years after originally specifying the long M700 action so they could convert them to .300 WinMag?
How in thee Hayul can an upgrade like that cost $4,000? Well, if they're going to AICS stocks and S&B glass, sure, but Leupolds shouldn't cost near that much.
About the M110 FCG problems, I have a one-word suggestion: Geissele, rhymes with "wisely." I put one in my LR-308 and I can't comment on its long-term durability, but it sure feels great. Ask some people who have lived with Geisseles what they think of them compared to ANY other match trigger. Note I said I put it in myself, without ill effect in only a couple hours, so why won't the Army let highly trained and selected snipers learn to detail-strip AR lowers?
I'm not so sure any "backlash" is emotion so much as reluctance to give up a thoroughly proven bolt gun for a sexier gas gun that looks great on paper and does offer some real capability improvements, but may not be quite ready for prime time. I'm not anti-gas, in fact I traded a bolt gun for that LR-308, but I'm not a sniper, so what does it matter.
Most of all, I agree with the opinion that it shouldn't have to be one or the other. If Army snipers know their stuff as well as I believe they do, they should be free to have bolt guns and gas guns in their toolbox instead of the Big Army jamming them with a one-size-fits-none approach.
Face_N_The_Crowd
08-01-08, 23:55
Now all they need to do is ditch the 190 SMK and go with a Berger 210 VLD.
$4000 per stick? We are getting hosed.
If they aren't going to .338 they ought to use 7mm. Maybe a WSM with a long loaded 175gr VLD.
LukeMacGillie
08-02-08, 07:31
Now all they need to do is ditch the 190 SMK and go with a Berger 210 VLD.
$4000 per stick? We are getting hosed.
Thats not 4 grand for just a rebarrel job, thats turn in your shot out M24 and get back a M24A2 SWS that uses your SN'd receiver for the base.
Voodoochild
08-02-08, 10:43
I know the MC Lt.Col that is quoted in the article he is a good guy and is all about getting the right equipment to the pipe hitters. As for going to 338 it will be interesting. Although knowing how slow the gov works it will be w while before anything goes down and the actual weapons are fielded.
We are getting hosed, by everybody, they used to call it war proffitering, now it is just buisness.
telecustom
08-02-08, 23:42
We just had a warning about our M110s. We were told to shelve ours because they have been exploding at around 100rds of total round count. This is a no shit warning. I will post the actual document when I get to work on Monday.
Face_N_The_Crowd
08-03-08, 00:29
Thats not 4 grand for just a rebarrel job, thats turn in your shot out M24 and get back a M24A2 SWS that uses your SN'd receiver for the base.
I understand exactly what work is being done and I recognize that a new day optic is being purchased as well - we're getting hosed.
royalroadie
08-03-08, 01:21
It sounds like they are discribing a rem 700 PSS that has be properly bedded , tuned and a good trigger. You can build one for about 1500 and add an 8x25 Leopold for an other 1100 and you have it done. I have one that will shoot .3 MOA. I just don't understand all the BS. Yes there are some fancier stocks but if the gun is set up correctly I will put the PSS up against their $5000 extra gun and I bet they will shoot the same.
You have to remember that there is about $2K worth of paperwork and stuff that goes along with stuff shipped to the military... :(
They should just get it over with and buy the AWSM.
back in the day we had a GS-30 come out to check our coffee maker every week. i think it cost the DOD about $20k a year just to keep the coffee maker's paperwork up to date!--now on the base we had hundreds of coffee makers!!
It sounds like they are discribing a rem 700 PSS that has be properly bedded , tuned and a good trigger. You can build one for about 1500 and add an 8x25 Leopold for an other 1100 and you have it done. I have one that will shoot .3 MOA. I just don't understand all the BS. Yes there are some fancier stocks but if the gun is set up correctly I will put the PSS up against their $5000 extra gun and I bet they will shoot the same.
But will they still shoot the same after being dropped out of an airplane and having someone use it for a landing pad?
If they switch there should a bunch of .308 ammo in the surplus pipeline .
Razorhunter
08-04-08, 17:51
Yeah, there's just no reason to be paying $6700 for an M24. I don't give a damn what glass, stock, bbl, etc it's got... That's BS and everyone knows it.
At that price, they shouldn't need a qualified live sniper to run them.
God only knows what the Barrett .50 cal is costing us...
Paul,
The last time I heard the Barrett package was costing about the same as the Knights Armament. The Barrett .50 is an awesome rifle and worth every penny as far as I am concerned. Back in 1990 when Ronnie came to Ft. Benning to do a demo and let guys shoot the rifle cost approx. 5750.00 dollars. Considering that was 18 years ago the price increase isn't that bad.
Yeah, there's just no reason to be paying $6700 for an M24. I don't give a damn what glass, stock, bbl, etc it's got... That's BS and everyone knows it.
At that price, they shouldn't need a qualified live sniper to run them.
God only knows what the Barrett .50 cal is costing us...
Yeah, there's just no reason to be paying $6700 for an M24. I don't give a damn what glass, stock, bbl, etc it's got... That's BS and everyone knows it.
At that price, they shouldn't need a qualified live sniper to run them.
God only knows what the Barrett .50 cal is costing us...
"Standard M24s cost about $6,700, he added."
The Army does not buy just the rifle and scope. I would actually like to see the price a civilian would pay for what the Army buys. Having had some trigger time on the M24 SWS (the last S is for System), let me give you an idea of what comes in the system:
Hardigg system case
Leupold MKIV M3A 10x40mm day optic (commercially unavailable)
Leupold MKiV one piece base and rings
M24 rifle
cleaning accessories
Seekonk 65 in lb torque wrench
Allen keys for every screw on the gun
Turner Saddelry sling
BUIS for the M24
Pelican hard case for the "deployment kit" (holds spare parts you may need on mission)
Assorted spare parts (spare followers and springs, screws, etc.)
Repairs contract with Remington (if the Sniper is unable to make the repair to the system, it goes back to Remington for the work)
This is just what I can remember off the top of my head, I do know there's more and it'd also be interesting to know if the Sniper Accessory Kit is included in the cost which includes things like some Eagle Industries products (drag bag, etc.), Mil Dot Master, wind guage, etc.
When you look at how much the Army pays for M4s, do you honestly think that they pay that much for a bolt gun?
But if the Army switches to a longer range bolt gun, my vote is for the AI AWSM in .338LM. As much as I loved my time on the M24, the AI is a superior rifle and .338LM gives the shooter the capacity to reach out to 1600m--which would be nice in countries like say for instance, Afghanistan, where engagement distances like that are not at all uncommon. (Well that and AI would have to open a plant in the US--so cheaper AI's for everyone!)
AI -- Accuracy Unintentional...
Way better .338LM guns exist.
AI -- Accuracy Unintentional...
Way better .338LM guns exist.
Like PGW?
I don't get the .300 Win Mag thing really. Barrel life sucks and you don't gain as much over .308 as you would with the .338.
There's plenty of great .338 LM rifles out there. My favorite, probably the Dakota Longbow tactical... although I haven't had the honor to fire one.
I have however spent some significant range time behind an Armalite AR30 in .338 LM, and it was spectacular. The rifles muzzle brake really tames down that beast, makes recoil feel about like a 12 Ga. 2.75" 00 Buck load.. using handloads, we shot .20 MOA groups with it, all the way to 850m (max distance at this range).. We also shot many many different targets, from a 55 gallon metal barrel filled w/ water, to an old small block Chevy V8 engine... when that round hits it's target... the words "decimate" and "obliterate" don't really do it justice lol.
For personal use, I'd take a .338 Lapua over a .50 BMG any day... perfect combination between weight and power... would make an excellent African hunting round as well.
Some snipers have said they want to be trained so they can fix their M110s themselves. Army officials maintain that snipers are trained to make small fixes such as replacing the firing pin or extractor, but any major fixes on the M110 have to be done at the unit armor level or at Knight’s Armament, Audette said.
DELETED EXPLETIVE:mad: a 10 year old could change a firing pin blindfolded
HORSESHIT:mad: a 10 year old could change a firing pin blindfolded
I believe the quote from the article indicates that snipers are able to replace firing pins, correct?
LukeMacGillie
11-12-08, 16:56
I believe the quote from the article indicates that snipers are able to replace firing pins, correct?
Bumping this back up since ive not been around for awhile, and to address a couple of Mk11Mod1/M110 issues
Graduates of one of the USSOCOM sponsored armorers courses are allowed to change a good many parts. Replace gas rings, firing pin, check for drilled vs milled exejector holes. It seems that the bad batch of bolts is finally totally out of the system.
One major change is that there are no longer any adjustments or changes to the less than steller triggers allowed until an agreed upon fix is published. The very high failure rate of the trigger has gotten the attention of everyone involved
Cagemonkey
11-12-08, 17:10
Had an AR30 .338 Lapua Mag. Light weight, inexpensive and pretty simple. Hadn't even broke in the barrel. Shot only about 10 rds and the gun was shooting 1/2 minute +. The justification of 7.62 NATO doesn't make much sense. The only weapons shooting 7.62mm are M240's and M14's. The Sniper would have to be desperate to shoot M80 7.62 ball.
LukeMacGillie
11-12-08, 17:45
Had an AR30 .338 Lapua Mag. Light weight, inexpensive and pretty simple. Hadn't even broke in the barrel. Shot only about 10 rds and the gun was shooting 1/2 minute +. The justification of 7.62 NATO doesn't make much sense. The only weapons shooting 7.62mm are M240's and M14's. The Sniper would have to be desperate to shoot M80 7.62 ball.
Como Que?
Anyway most Snipers I know shoot M80 ball on a regular basis just so they have a baseline on POI shift for that ammo type. They also shoot M118, M852 and M62, but feed their SWS a steady diet of M118LR.
Im handing out both hard and PDF copies of the most recent JAG ruling on OTM rounds, but given that it was only a couple years ago that folks were temporarly stripped of their M118LR, it is a possiblity that some off the Reservation JAG Officer could try and make policy again.
“It’s a whole lot easier to hit a target between 800 and 1,200 meters with a .300 Win Mag,” he said, describing the round’s flat trajectory and reduced resistance to wind.
Mistake or true? I don't know much about the .300 Win mag, but this stood out to me.
-B
They shoot a high BC 190 grain bullet, so it has less drift.
We just had a warning about our M110s. We were told to shelve ours because they have been exploding at around 100rds of total round count. This is a no shit warning. I will post the actual document when I get to work on Monday.
Could you send me that warning? I talked with Bob and several of our snipers and the Armement Tech for one of their BDEs last month while they were checking out the triggers on our weapons. I believe all on those rifles had shot well more then 100 rounds.
Gentlemen, the US Army is getting EXACTLY what it asked for and specified -- no more, no less.
The XM-110 was NOT specified by the US Army's snipers -- the specs were written by a Picatinny Arsenal contractor working for the Infantry Directorate of Combat Developments Small Arms Division. During the requirements staffing phase they did NOT add in the comments of the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School nor the Army Marksmanship Unit.
DCD specified the XM-110 would REPLACE the M24 on a 1-for-1 basis, NOT augment.
There was no plan to retain nor re-barrel the M24.
sinister,
I think we are mostly in agreement on this. Speaking from the Infantry BN level and having worked with some of the developers also this has some compound issues in it that go wel beyound open source for discussion. The M-110 is basicly a 2003 or 2004 respose to a warfighter ill stated requirement for a sniper support/urban sniper/designated marksman requirement. It then grew into a replacement for the M-24.
I believe that due to the cost of a product improvement plan for the M-24 and industry protests, most likely the M-24 is on it's way out. As issued the M-24 is very accurate, but is 1980 tech. If money is availible then I expect the Sources Sought will result in a RFP for a modernized bolt rifle to fill the gap between the M-14EBR, M-110 and the M-107. The exsiting m-24's will most likely find their way over seas through FMS.
We just had a warning about our M110s. We were told to shelve ours because they have been exploding at around 100rds of total round count. This is a no shit warning. I will post the actual document when I get to work on Monday.
Any company producing rifles as expensive at the M110 would not have gotten where they are today by shipping out multiple rifles that explode after 100 rounds. There is obviously more to the story. Maybe one rifle exploded after the barrel was filled with mud and not checked for obstructions.
Any company producing rifles as expensive at the M110 would not have gotten where they are today by shipping out multiple rifles that explode after 100 rounds. There is obviously more to the story. Maybe one rifle exploded after the barrel was filled with mud and not checked for obstructions.
DrDoot,
I believe that this is bogus. I've seen some of the 110 issues and this is not one of them. The 110's are being issued and this notice has not been published. In each case that I have seen it come up the poster has failed to come back and provide the aledged notice.
I can account for 36 of the rifles.
Littlelebowski
02-23-09, 15:01
AI -- Accuracy Unintentional...
Way better .338LM guns exist.
This is the very first negative thing I've heard about any AI outside of their .50. Care to elaborate?
I shot an AI rifle back around 2001 or so and it was a helluva good shooter. Hell, if I could afford one I may have been tempted......
This is the very first negative thing I've heard about any AI outside of their .50. Care to elaborate?
I have only heard cost and availability comments being negative. I got to shoot an AIAW in .300 winmag. Seemed like a nice weapon.
Littlelebowski
02-25-09, 08:55
We just had a warning about our M110s. We were told to shelve ours because they have been exploding at around 100rds of total round count. This is a no shit warning. I will post the actual document when I get to work on Monday.
It's way past Monday. Please corroborate your claim or retract it.
Littlelebowski
02-25-09, 08:57
My brother shoots an AI AW and he's been there, done that, and has the video to prove it. He got turned onto AIs from his Sniper School Instructors. What other turn key, battle ready .338LM solutions are out there besides the TRG?
My personal fav for .338LM guns
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Weapons/pgw4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Weapons/pgw1.jpg
PGWDTI C-14 Timberwolf
another version for an entity down here...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Weapons/rhsfolded1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Weapons/butt.jpg
I had photochopped the UNS out as it was not supposed to be there ;)
I am not a fan of the AI .338LM due to trigger, and the way the stock is cemented to the barrel, as well as some barrel life issues (inherent to the .338LM platform in general but more evident in the AI, at least the ones I saw)
Edit - the M110 notice was bogus.
Littlelebowski
02-25-09, 09:27
The PGW is made of unobtanium for civvies at this point - how did it shoot?
The PGW is made of unobtanium for civvies at this point - how did it shoot?
Who makes that beautiful piece and why are they unavailable to civvies? I would have to assume this weapon costs more than an AIAW am I wrong?
Also, any details on who makes that folding stock?
http://www.pgwdti.com/ but I just noticed their website is under construction.
Email Steve; steve@pgwdti.com
They do sell to civilians, and I know a few who own them...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Shooting/KevwTwolf.jpg
a buddies gun I was shooting in Nov up in Canada.
The guns shoot like a laser - I did nothing past 800m but it was grouping in the 3" area if I did my part.
I saw two guys selling them as they could not afford .338LM about 3 months ago, one was in Mi, and the other was Texas -- but I think they must have sold pretty quick, as when I inquired they where gone.
The PGW is the best .338 I've seen to date; like KevinB, the AI's I've been around did not shoot as well. Todd Hodnett has a very nice Sako with a 1/9.35 twist that shoots very well... Additional info here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22113
Thanks for the info guys.
(I might as well live in a cave over here).
Littlelebowski
02-25-09, 12:35
I did not clarify my remark. What I meant by "unobtanium" is years behind on backorders to the civilian world.
Edit - the M110 notice was bogus.
Roger, thanks. Was that you at Drum testing triggers?
Nope that would have been Chuck or Jim.
if you ever need us - give me a holler and we will be out to support you.
Updated from the Army Times, goes with some other things i'm tracking...
Sniper range may hit 1,200 meters soon
Plan: M24 chambered for .300 Win Mag
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 23, 2009 11:07:01 EDT
Army snipers could soon have a weapon capable of killing enemy fighters out to 1,200 meters, which is 400 meters beyond the range of the current-issue sniper rifle.
Program Executive Office Soldier is working on a plan to outfit units that need their snipers to shoot out to 1,200 meters with a modified M24 sniper rifle chambered for the .300 Winchester Magnum.
The Army began replacing the bolt-action M24 with the M110 Semiautomatic Sniper System in late 2007 to give snipers a rapid-fire weapon for engaging multiple targets in urban areas. Both rifles are chambered for 7.62mm NATO ammunition and have an effective range of about 800 meters.
Many in the sniper community disliked the decision, arguing that the M24’s simple bolt-action design has fewer moving parts and is more accurate than a more complex semi-auto design.
The complaints prompted 25th Infantry Division officials in Hawaii to write an Operational Needs Statement last summer that involved sending their M24s to the gun’s maker, Remington Arms Co. in Madison, N.C., to be retrofitted to .300 Win Mag instead of turning them in to the Army.
PEO Soldier Commander Brig. Gen Peter Fuller said he will support the request as a short-term solution for giving the Army a longer range sniper rifle.
“We are supporting units that are asking for modified M24s in .300 Win Mag,” if they have an operational needs statement for such a capability, Fuller recently told Army Times.
Both the Army and Marine Corps are working a long-range sniper rifle designed to kill an enemy from as far out as 1,800 meters.
Both services use versions of a .50-caliber sniper rifle that is effective out to 2,500 meters, but the 30-pound weapon is mainly intended to destroy large nonhuman targets such as light-skinned vehicles.
“We realize there is a gap in between those two, 800 to 2,500 meters,” Fuller said, cautioning that this is a short-term fix.
“Do you want to have a program of record or do you want to keep pushing things into gaps? There are a lot of vendors out there,” he said. “How do you ensure you have a fair and open competition to make sure the best opportunity comes forward and not just one because we did an operational needs statement?”
The caliber upgrade for the M24 is not a new concept. Special operations units such as the 75th Ranger Regiment have been shooting M24s chambered in .300 Win Mag since the late 1990s.
The 25th ID’s upgrade effort involves sending the existing M24s to Remington, where they will be fitted with a new barrel, a new bolt face, a special folding stock and a more powerful optic. Each upgrade would cost about $4,000, Remington officials have estimated. Standard M24s cost about $6,700.
It’s still unclear how the modifications will be handled, Fuller said.
“When units have their own unique systems, how do you maintain that across the Army?” he asked. “We have to think through this; at some point, musical chairs are going to stop and you are not going to be able to do your own thing.”
Littlelebowski
03-23-09, 15:29
The .300 is not a quantum leap over the .308. The above requirement has ".338 Lapua" written all over it.
The 300 Win Mag M24 is the Army's official interim solution towards the next generation Long Range Precision Sniper Rifle. It is NOT where the Army wants to be, but is the quickest-fix with on-hand weapons.
TRADOC and Infantry Center have to draft the Requirements Document for Long Range Sniper Rifle. They may just wait and strap-hang onto SOCOM's definition and go with that (since they're ten years ahead of Leg Army). Mother Army is working very closely with the JFK Special Warfare Center (which is good since Infantry Center no longer has military guys but rather contractors writing Infantry/Army small arms requirements -- sheesh).
Bridge ammunition will probably be SOCOM's A-191 300 Win Mag loading. The rifle will probably NOT have the AI or H-S stock. The Bridge will most probably have a muzzle brake and suppressor and rails for night-fighting equipment.
Next generation rifle will be a 33-caliber "Non-developmental/non-wildcat" round. That's pronounced, "338 Lapua." It probably won't use the Leupold scope.
The Army's Small Arms Development system is like most of its other R&D paths -- welfare for engineers and Ph.Ds who suck funds from the Army tit and don't have to go to combat .
Yup.
Most of NATO has already standardized on the .338LM so outside of short operational needs the .300WM rebarreling is a waste (IMHO)for both cost, and standarization. Secondly as mentioned the COTS rebarreling is not a open and honest competition.
If they switch there should a bunch of .308 ammo in the surplus pipeline .
All military ammo gets de milled before they can sell it to us due to a Bill Clinton EO
sinister,
I shared some of my old data on this with DocGKR. Mom is slow and doesn't not move quickly on just about anything as you well know. I don't see the long term fix getting out till 2013 and I first flagged this for the grunt side in 2006. KevinB's team started on the M-110 in what 2004, and it's just getting in the field? The SCAR started at about the same time and still isn't on the streets.
Suppose this could go into a new thread, but what the hay:)
W15QKN-09-X-0413
FedBizOpps notice Date: 2009-05-13
Description:
Sources Sought ? M24 Sniper Weapon System (SWS) Reconfiguration
Contracting Office Address: US Army Contracting Command, Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center, Picatinny NJ 07806
Description: This notice is a Sources Sought announcement. There is no solicitation available at this time. The US Army Contracting Command, Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center, in support of the Project Manager Soldier Weapons, is conducting a market survey to identify potential sources for reconfiguring some or all of existing 7.62 x 51mm M24 Sniper Weapon Systems (SWS) currently available in Army inventory to the specifications identified in this notice.
The M24 SWS is a bolt action, internal magazine fed, 7.62 x 51mm rifle intended to
engage and defeat personnel targets out to 800 meters. This notice is to determine if there are potential sources capable of reconfiguring existing US Army M24 SWSs to meet the following criteria:
1. Caliber: Rebarreled/rechambered barrel optimized to accommodate Mk248
2. (DODIC A191) 300 Winchester Magnum ammunition.
3. MIL-STD-1913 Rail: Replacement of existing weaver rail with a
4. MIL-STD-1913 rail capable of accommodating both a day optic and in-line,
5. forward mounted, AN/PVS-26 (NSN 5855-01-538-8121) image intensified
6. (I2) night vision device.
7. Stock: Reconfigured with a stock that incorporates a detachable box magazine
8. , adjustable comb and length of pull.
9. Sound suppressor: Addition of a detachable sound suppressor as well as any
10. necessary barrel modifications required for sound suppressor interface.
11. Day optic: Replacement of the existing day optic sight (DOS) and rings
12. with an Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings.
Any interested offer is also requested to provide information and relative background on their capabilities to provide contractor logisitics support for depot level maintenance of the entire upgraded weapon system.
All responsible, interested offerors are encouraged to submit their capabilities/qualification data and any pertinent information in hard copy or via email, within 15 calendar days to:
This is a sources sought notice only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or a commitment by the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this market survey. All information is to be submitted at no cost or obligation to the Government. If a formal solicitation is generated at a later date, a solicitation notice will be published and more detailed technical requirements will be provided.
W15QKN-09-X-0413/W15QKN-09-X-0413 (http://procnet.pica.army.mil/FBO/SrcSgt/W15QKN-09-X-0413/W15QKN-09-X-0413.htm)
More details seem to have been released at NDIA. First the Ammo:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf
.300 Winchester Magnum Match
Product Improvement (PIP)
MK 248 MOD 1
DODIC: AB43
NSN: 1305-01-568-7504
New Requirement
The current 190 gr. .300 Win Mag cartridge, DODIC A191, has a published effective range of 1200 yds (1100 m).
New requirement established a 1500 yds (1370 m) effective range
Initial tasking was to develop a 250 gr. .338 Lapua Magnum cartridge.
Objective
Extend effective range from 1200 yds to 1500 yds (1370 m)
Decrease the effect of wind drift on the projectile
Flash reduced and temperature stable propellant -25F to +165F
Down Select
220 gr. Sierra MatchKing® .300 Win Mag
Meets objectives
Can be fired in existing weapons
Less sensitive than the 210 gr. VLD
Comparable accuracy and velocity retention to the 250 gr. .338 Lapua Mag
Significant cost savings over the .338 Lapua Mag
Results
Increased effective range to 1,500 yds
Reduced wind deflection
Propellant stabile across operational temps (-25F to +165F)
Comparable accuracy to existing A191
Contract estimated award of June 09
Then the Rifle?????? If you have AKO access their is a interesting breif in the PEO Soldier files to.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=aa29286ddb12cc8f1c4fa29069716b16&tab=core&_cview=0
M24 Sniper Weapon System (SWS) Reconfiguration
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-09-X-0413
Description: This notice is a Sources Sought announcement. There is no solicitation available at this time. The US Army Contracting Command, Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center, in support of the Project Manager Soldier Weapons, is conducting a market survey to identify potential sources for reconfiguring some or all of existing 7.62 x 51mm M24 Sniper Weapon Systems (SWS) currently available in Army inventory to the specifications identified in this notice.
The M24 SWS is a bolt action, internal magazine fed, 7.62 x 51mm rifle intended to engage and defeat personnel targets out to 800 meters. This notice is to determine if there are potential sources capable of reconfiguring existing US Army M24 SWSs to meet the following criteria:
1. Caliber: Rebarreled/rechambered barrel optimized to accommodate Mk2482. (DODIC A191) 300 Winchester Magnum ammunition.3. MIL-STD-1913 Rail: Replacement of existing weaver rail with a 4. MIL-STD-1913 rail capable of accommodating both a day optic and in-line,5. forward mounted, AN/PVS-26 (NSN 5855-01-538-8121) image intensified 6. (I2) night vision device.7. Stock: Reconfigured with a stock that incorporates a detachable box magazine8. , adjustable comb and length of pull.9. Sound suppressor: Addition of a detachable sound suppressor as well as any10. necessary barrel modifications required for sound suppressor interface.11. Day optic: Replacement of the existing day optic sight (DOS) and rings12. with an Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings.
Looks like this is getting closer to completion. Crazy how long it takes for the .mil move from defining requirements to procuring solutions....
M24 Sniper Weapon System (SWS) Reconfiguration
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-09-R-0482
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: U. S. Army Materiel Command
Synopsis:
Added: Aug 13, 2009 3:41 pm
Pre-Solicitation Notice for theM24 Sniper Weapon System (SWS) ReconfigurationThe U.S. Army Joint Munitions and Lethality Life Cycle Management Command AcquisitionCenter, on behalf of the Office of the Product Manager, Individual Weapons, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ has a requirement for the reconfiguring of a quantity of existing 7.62 x 51mm M24 Sniper Weapon Systems (SWS) presently available in Army inventory to the specifications identified in the forthcoming Request for Proposal (RFP).The M24 SWS is a bolt action, internal magazine fed, 7.62 x 51mm rifle intended to engage and defeat personnel targets out to 800 meters. The following description provides an outline regarding the efforts involved for this upcoming acquisition:1. Caliber: Rebarreled/rechambered barrel optimized to accommodate Mk248 (DODIC A191) 300 Winchester Magnum ammunition.2. MIL-STD-1913 Rail: Replacement of existing weaver rail with a MIL-STD-1913 rail capable of accommodating both a day optic and in-line, forward mounted, AN/PV-26/29 (NSN 5855-01-538-8121) image intensified (I2) night vision device.3. Stock: Reconfigured with a stock that incorporates a detachable box magazine, adjustable comb and length of pull.4. Sound suppressor: Addition of a detachable sound suppressor as well as any necessary barrel modifications required for sound suppressor interface.5. Day optic: Replacement of the existing day optic sight (DOS) and rings with a variable power day optic and compatible rings.
The M24 Sniper Weapon System Upgrade is being procured under a Nondevelopmental Item (NDI) acquisition approach. Interested offerors will be required to submit four (4) bid samples as part of their proposal submission. These bid samples will be provided at no cost to the Government and will be utilized for competitive evaluation testing. Bid samples will be returned to all unsuccessful offerors, in an as tested condition, following contract award. The current schedule projects release of a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) in late September 2009\ or early October 2009. Delivery of bid sample hardware and written proposals will be required within 30 days after release of the RFP.
Any potential contractors are also requested to provide information and relative background on their capabilities to provide contractor logistics support for depot level maintenance of the entire upgraded weapon system. The M24 SWS is a security risk category IV item in accordance with DOD 5100.76.M, Physical Security of Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunitions and Explosives. Therefore the potential contractors must be in full compliance with DOD and DSS security procedures to ensure proper storage facilities for GFM weapons. This is not a solicitation. All interested offerors are encouraged to submit their proposals, and bid samples, upon release of the solicitation in accordance with instructions contained in the proposal, within 30 calendar days after release of solicitation to: Army Contracting Command
Combat_Diver
08-23-09, 05:44
I carried this Rem 700 built by Crane NSWC in .300 WM during 05-06' down range. Ammo was A191 and not shown was the suppressor. Also issued was a M82A1 Barrett rifle.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/9809700_50_.jpg
My son graduated SOTIC this year and has a hard on fro the .338 LM. Not sure what rifle he shot and what he's carrying in Iraq right now. I really would like to see the M24 make there way into the CMP pipeline.:p. When I was in 5th years ago it was almost impossible to get the M24 rebarreled to .300 WM. Did have a few and a couple very accurate Browning BARs Mk II in .300 WM also right after GW1.
CD
Gutshot John
08-23-09, 10:17
All military ammo gets de milled before they can sell it to us due to a Bill Clinton EO
All military surplus? or just US military surplus?
Lots of countries use 7.62 NATO that are switching over to .338LM.
Combat_Diver
08-24-09, 04:27
Found out what my son is carriying, seems he's devolped his dope on a SR25. But then again he's the only sniper on his team and he has guns chamebered for 5.56 (SPR), 7.62x51 (M24, SR25 and M110), .300 WM and .50 (M107). Life is good for that young 18B. :D
A soldier could break an anvil, but a marine could break it then lose it! That does not surprise me about the M110.
:D
" U.S. Army Sgt. Patrick Polley, of Chatfield, Minn. and Spc. Jonathan
Perrell of Walnut, Calf., with the 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment's
Sniper team were also awarded for their efforts during a firefight, Sept. 7.
According to U.S. Army Capt. Kamil Sztalkoper, commander, Headquarters and
Headquarters Troop, 3-71 CAV, Perrell, who is the spotter for his team, and
his shooter, Polley, successfully eliminated a target who was 1,696 meters
away.
"We were already engaged with the enemy and noticed six more insurgents on a
hill," added the shooter, who was on an over watch position covering
Soldiers of Troop C. "We saw that one of them was carrying a
Rocket-propelled Grenade, and we took the shot. It's one of the longest
shots recorded with this rifle."
The MK-13 Sniper Rifle is estimated to have an effective range of only 1,200
meters.
"Having General Terry here to present us our awards is exciting and a huge
honor," added Perrell."
http://www.taskforcemountain.com/top-stories/3737-new-division-commander-vis
its-afghanistan-to-highlight-troops-climb-to-glory-5
This just made my day! The same unit also recorded the first hit with the XM-110 after it was issued in OEF a few years ago. It was a night shot by the spotter at something like 600m.
Combat_Diver
10-27-09, 11:56
Outstanding shooting! For those that don't know the Mk 13 is a Rem 700 chambered in .300 Win Mag. Here's mine from 05'-06'.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/9809700_50_.jpg
CD
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.